This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Holocaust narrative was not dominant in the UK in the 1960's (as I have pointed out elsewhere on the Motte, it couldn't dominate in the countries that suffered most from WW2 until the survivors of Hitler's main crime - namely aggressive war - were no longer with us) and didn't figure in the debates over Origins. Google books gives the following word counts from the original edition of the book:
Compared to the discussion of geopolitical themes not relevant to the Holocaust
This is, of course, exactly what you would expect in a book about the origins of WW2, given that the Holocaust was planned and carried out well after the war started.
The debate which Taylor did not come out the winner of was a debate among professional historians about questions amenable to the usual techniques of historical research - most notably "What was the status of the so-called Hossbach memorandum presented to the Nuremberg Tribunal as evidence of a long-term Nazi plan for conquest in Eastern Europe?" AJP Taylor throws a lot of shade at the authenticity of the memorandum, which if definitive would directly refute his argument, but modern researchers with access to archives that were secret in 1961 have been able to validate it. (As with the Downing Street Memo in the lead-up to Iraq, you can still argue about just how definitive the draft minute of a high-level meeting prepared by a relatively junior note-taker actually is)
The point I am trying to make here is that "revisionist" accounts about WW2 and Hitler's political/military strategy have never been suppressed in the way that "revisionist" accounts of Nazi racial policy and the Holocaust are. The evidence for the proposition "WW2 happened because Hitler was a madman bent on world domination by military aggression" and both sides of the debate on it are out in the open, and I can be reasonably confident of the establishment position for roughly the same reasons that I am reasonably confident of the establishment position on the half-life of Pu-239 or the year the dinosaurs died out.
The military history community, of course, doesn't even consider Nazi-sympathetic views revisionist - it prides itself on being able to separate the concepts of "competent/incompetent general" from "fought on the good/evil side". "Rommel was a world-historically great general", "The Wehrmacht was the best military in WW2 and only lost due to weight of numbers", and "Hitler was an effective strategist whose only mistake was overambition" are all just one side of a debate. There is a reason why military history of WW2 is a gateway drug to the higher-IQ forms of Holocaust denialism and such-like. (See David Irving)
The Holocaust Narrative was not dominant in the 1960s, I said that was when the Holocaust Narrative essentially began in its current form. Yes Origins hardly touches the topic and doesn't mention gas chambers at all. It doesn't really do you any favors though to point out that the Holocaust narrative as such really emerged decades after the war in full form. Usually a historical event is most salient in the public consciousness in the immediate aftermath of the event and fades over time. It's the complete opposite with the Holocaust, in which it was basically ignored for decades and didn't peak in the public consciousness until the 1990s at the earliest, although I would argue it is at its peak right now.
Origins doesn't touch the Holocaust, neither does Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe or Churchill's Second World War totaling 4,448 pages, neither does de Gaulle's three volume Mémoires de guerre, none of them mention gas chambers a single time or anything resembling the prevailing Holocaust narrative. It's a very stark omission, which the mainstream explains away as- they just didn't care enough about Jews enough to mention it.
The fact that WWII Revisionism emerged before the Holocaust narrative in its current form proliferated, and then has been fanatically suppressed ever since the Holocaust narrative has become the holy center of western mythology points to a relationship between the two.
How many various Israeli memorandum have been produced with various proposals and plans in the past 2 years? The mainstream relies on an extremely illogical overemphasis on memos like that. A non-reviewed memo written from memory by an attendee 5 days after a single meeting 1937- how likely is that to be a realistic blueprint ground-truth plan for geopolitical policy in 1940? Various memos have been leaked from the Israeli camp with plans for Gaza, it would be like picking a memo from a single meeting and saying the Israelis absolutely plan to do this 3 years from now. The situation changes, the idea that memo sinks the Revisionist case for WWII is wishful thinking.
The mainstream constantly ignores these kinds of rhetoric and memos coming from Israeli leaders, but then treats a memo from a single meeting in 1937 as a be-all-end-all plan. The memo also validates that Germany did not want war with Great Britain and France, which would validate an important Revisionist position.
This is true but they still ban Holocaust Revisionism, at least on places like Axis History Forum. It's understandable, they don't want their intellectual curiosity in the Axis powers conflated with antisemitism so they police their own community vigorously on that question as far as I can tell. But outside the military forums any sort of Revisionist treatment of the Axis powers or WWII is scandalizing, as you can see from the various reactions of WWII Revisionism being platformed on Tucker Carlson and soon to be on Joe Rogan. Sure the military history community will ponder a question like "What if Britain had remained neutral in the German-Soviet war?" but the powers that be will be apoplectic to hear that question platformed seriously on Rogan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link